Conquer Club

I think this is probably the single best idea I've seen for handling missed turns ever proposed on this site. It doesn't penalize them for missing their turn (unless they once held a bonus they no longer hold), but it also doesn't give them the advantage of being able to lay down double or triple armies for their attack.

I think Brahms is right. I understand that if someone misses a turn you have the advantage of attacking them before they get a chance to fortify but what happens if you can't do that? I had an opponent firmly entrenched and I had no way of effectively attacking him while holding off my other opponent so all I could do was fortify and hope for the best. I see it as not only does the player get armies multiplied by two but they don't lose any for not attacking which opponents could have taken advantage of.

In any event I'm casting my vote with Brahms, its still a little too kind in my opinion, but at least you have an idea of what is coming in the next turn and can do something about it.

Brahms wrote:I apologize if this has already been round as I got tired of reading forums after the first couple pages.

But, how would it be if one got their extra armies for being a complete dead beat jackass at the end of their turn.

Regardless of how stupid a strategy it is people still try it, I was in a game where one guy did nothing but go for the maximum multiplier.

It's offensive and I can't condone such a selfish waste of time as a 'strategy', but people do disappear for legitimate reasons, which is why I think it would be a fair compromise if there was a special phase at the end of the round for placing armies earned in previous turns.

It would blow out the surprise factor and would remove the unfortunate temptation felt by our more simple minded members, while still being fair to people with legitimate reasons.

This is the most interesting suggestion to the problem I've seen yet. Can anyone foresee any pitfalls with this suggestion? What about for freestyle where another player makes you miss your turn, would it work there as well?

The idea of people recieving their missed troops at the end of their turn seems a bit weird. Strange thing to come up with if you see what i mean. But i think this idea has a lot of potential.

Rocketry

Brahms wrote:I apologize if this has already been round as I got tired of reading forums after the first couple pages.

But, how would it be if one got their extra armies for being a complete dead beat jackass at the end of their turn.

Regardless of how stupid a strategy it is people still try it, I was in a game where one guy did nothing but go for the maximum multiplier.

It's offensive and I can't condone such a selfish waste of time as a 'strategy', but people do disappear for legitimate reasons, which is why I think it would be a fair compromise if there was a special phase at the end of the round for placing armies earned in previous turns.

It would blow out the surprise factor and would remove the unfortunate temptation felt by our more simple minded members, while still being fair to people with legitimate reasons.

To me, the part in bold means that it would be more time alloted at the end of the "round"

Which means more time!

john1099 wrote:

wicked wrote:

Brahms wrote:I apologize if this has already been round as I got tired of reading forums after the first couple pages.

But, how would it be if one got their extra armies for being a complete dead beat jackass at the end of their turn.

Regardless of how stupid a strategy it is people still try it, I was in a game where one guy did nothing but go for the maximum multiplier.

It's offensive and I can't condone such a selfish waste of time as a 'strategy', but people do disappear for legitimate reasons, which is why I think it would be a fair compromise if there was a special phase at the end of the round for placing armies earned in previous turns.

It would blow out the surprise factor and would remove the unfortunate temptation felt by our more simple minded members, while still being fair to people with legitimate reasons.

This is the most interesting suggestion to the problem I've seen yet. Can anyone foresee any pitfalls with this suggestion? What about for freestyle where another player makes you miss your turn, would it work there as well?

So you now have to wait longer?

eh?

john1099 wrote:Fork out the $20, and get premium, you don't ever notice if someone misses a turn when you have 60+ going

True. Don't play assassin sequential no cards adj without prem.

why would you have to wait longer? you'd still have to deploy your troops within your allotted turn time.

wicked wrote:why would you have to wait longer? you'd still have to deploy your troops within your allotted turn time.

wicked brough back the bunny avator

I have to agree with all of the other positive comments. This one sounds like a keeper.

what an awesome idea awesome!

i would assume you get one turns worth of armies at the beginning (for the turn your taking) and then you get armies for the turns you missed, so in essence, two deployment phases

only problems i see are with freestyle, it might be taken advantage of to take your turn fast then while your opponent is attacking deploy even more (but i dont play freestyle so i wouldnt know)

and can it be programmed so you get armies equal to what you get at the START of the turn (multiplied by missed turns) and not at the end. because some1 could miss 2 turns, get three armies at beginning and then take a continent for lets say +2 and then get 10 more armies at end of turn (instead of 6 which is what you should get in my opinion)

and can it be programmed so you get armies equal to what you get at the START of the turn (multiplied by missed turns) and not at the end. because some1 could miss 2 turns, get three armies at beginning and then take a continent for lets say +2 and then get 10 more armies at end of turn (instead of 6 which is what you should get in my opinion)

I'm sure lack could program it this way.

As for the freestyle games I don't see that as a problem. You can wait for someone to deploy and then you quickly start your turn and deploy to stop them already. It would be nice to strategically place them at the end of your turn, but its still not something you would purposely miss your turn for.
And besides, anything goes in freestyle games anyway.

Glad to see everyone likes this idea. But again, sadly I can't take credit for it.

you'll get a faster response if you use the form, but that is the best solution ive seen on this so far. nice work brahms.

This is an OK solution in games with unlimited fortification, but a terrible idea for games with limited fortification.

mach wrote:This is an OK solution in games with unlimited fortification, but a terrible idea for games with limited fortification.

If I'm understanding the idea correctly, fortification has nothing to do with this suggestion.

treefiddy wrote:

mach wrote:This is an OK solution in games with unlimited fortification, but a terrible idea for games with limited fortification.

If I'm understanding the idea correctly, fortification has nothing to do with this suggestion.

Actually, it has everything to do with fortification. What the proposed solution would do is to switch the use of the "bonus" armies from the deployment phase (usable for attacking) to the fortification phase (reinforcements).

Basically, the above argument reasons that in unlimited fortifications, you can move your armies throughout any connected countries at any time. Limited fortifications only allow you to reinforce 1 territory at a time (adjacent or chained). What this would do, is to allow you to reinforce multiple territories (by "deploying" them).

A possible solution would require a new "territory (MissedTurn)" be added to ALL maps. Making it a territory would eliminate the ability to reinforce multiple locations. Another potential problem might be that when you are only able to fortify from territories with at least 2 armies to other connected territories.

Territory MissedTurn would need to be connected to every territory, unable to be fortified to/attacked from/attacked to, and able to fortify down to 0 armies (or always have 1+ armies). The number of "extra" armies received (pre-turn status [multiplied bonus minus initial bonus] or post-attack status [multiplied armies]) probably depends on the way in which fortifications are implemented (or how much extra effort it would take to pass that variable along).

EDIT: double posted?

I don't think it would screw up fortifications, since you can normally just deploy where you want forted at the beginning of the turn. But it is something to consider.

Aerial Attack wrote:What this would do, is to allow you to reinforce multiple territories (by "deploying" them).

...which you can already do in the current system. Just "deploy" them anyway.

I believe the suggested idea is a second deployment stage. That wouldn't have any effect on the fortification.

treefiddy wrote:I believe the suggested idea is a second deployment stage. That wouldn't have any effect on the fortification.

I could be wrong, but I believe that adding another "deployment" phase could be tougher to implement than what I suggested. Then again, it could be just reusing the current deployment code ... (a 2nd call to the routine or a cut-n-paste).

I would like to have the option during board creation to select the number of turns that a player can timeout before they are booted. This would allow people who want to play a proper game to join tables where the number might be 0 or 1.

Also, I think having the option to select other parameters might be helpfull. For example a time limit for turns (especially good for rt) and an option to select wether or not players get armies for missed turns on their next move.

The idea of having the armies at the end of the turn is crazy since noone will attack on the first turn then cince it is 3 on 3.

Welcome all responses

Thanks

treefiddy wrote:I believe the suggested idea is a second deployment stage. That wouldn't have any effect on the fortification.

Wrong. It has a huge effect on limited fortification. Aeriel Attack just explained why a second deployment stage is directly linked to fortification. I will explain it in my own words, and I hope this time you will understand.

Deploying extra armies after attacks allows the player to make multiple adjustments to the distribution of their armies, as opposed to ONE adjustment allowed by chained and adjacent fortification. If you're attacking from multiple territories, and some armies unexpectedly lose more armies than others, you would be able to put armies in more than one territory instead of just one. Since it's impossible to know where you're going to need to fortify after you attack, it definitely makes a difference.

wicked wrote:I don't think it would screw up fortifications, since you can normally just deploy where you want forted at the beginning of the turn.

How do you know at the beginning of your turn where you'll have to fortify after you attack? If there's a method of knowing how your attacks are going to play out, please enlighten us all.

mach wrote:

wicked wrote:I don't think it would screw up fortifications, since you can normally just deploy where you want forted at the beginning of the turn.

How do you know at the beginning of your turn where you'll have to fortify after you attack? If there's a method of knowing how your attacks are going to play out, please enlighten us all.

Because you know where you're going to be attacking. It's the same as when you have to carefully deploy with adjacent forts.. your deployments double as fortifying.

I still don't understand why having a second deployment stage would effect fortification. Here's how I see it happening with missing two turns and only getting 3 armies.

Treefiddy gets 3 armies for 9 territories.
Treefiddy attacks Egypt from Middle East and conquered it from somerandomdude.
Treefiddy fortifies Middle East with 6 armies from Egypt.
Treefiddy receives 6 armies for missed turns.
Treefiddy deploys 2 armies on Egypt.
Treefiddy deploys 2 armies on Middle East.
Treefiddy deploys 2 armies on North Africa.

Or it can be the same way except the deployment comes after "End Attacks" but before the Fortification.

Deployment is different from Fortification. Deployment, no matter what the fortification is set to, can be split up however you want anytime you want. Therefore, making a second deployment stage wouldn't have any bearing on the fortification setting.

Unless you are arguing that allowing deployment of troops after the attacks destroys the game balance of a chained or Adjacent fortification. Then I understand. I do believe that destroying that balance is better than allowing people to use all 9 armies in their initial.

treefiddy wrote:Deployment is different from Fortification. Deployment, no matter what the fortification is set to, can be split up however you want anytime you want. Therefore, making a second deployment stage wouldn't have any bearing on the fortification setting.

This is getting ridiculous. It does have an effect.

treefiddy wrote:Unless you are arguing that allowing deployment of troops after the attacks destroys the game balance of a chained or Adjacent fortification. Then I understand. I do believe that destroying that balance is better than allowing people to use all 9 armies in their initial.

Yes, I'm only talking about it being bad for chained and adjacent fortification. If you read my first post I stated that very specifically.

It seems like some still don't understand, which is extremely confusing to me, and I just noticed that wicked is a mod, so I'll give it one last shot.

I'm attacking from country A, country B, and country C. The countries I'm attacking are D, E, and F respectively. Countries A, B, and C all have the same number of units. Countries D, E, and F also all have the same number of units (but not necessarily the same as A, B, and C). My plan is to conquer D, E, F and advance all my units there. I want countries D, E, F to all have the same number of units when I end my turn.

Now, at the beginning of my turn, the obvious thing to do to carry out my plan is to evenly deploy my units between A, B, C. However, when I attack, I do succeed in taking over D, E, F, but they all don't have the same number of units. If this is a limited fortification game, I have one fortification to balance out the armies, which may or may not be possible to do in one move. If I can fortify AND deploy more units, I may be able to evenly distribute my armies. I hope that's clear. If it's not, I don't know how to explain it any better. Depending on the situation, it may or may not have a big effect, and it may or may not be a bigger advantage than getting to deploy them before the turn.